Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the subject of the test from challenging the reliability or accuracy of the test, the reliability or functioning of the instrument, or any maintenance procedures. Such challenges, however, shall not preclude the admissibility of the test once the prosecution or department has made a prima facie showing of the requirements contained in (a) of this subsection. Instead, such challenges may be considered by the trier of fact in determining what weight to give to the test result. RCW 46.61.506(c)
RCW 46.61.506
Persons under influence of intoxicating liquor or drug — Evidence — Tests — Information concerning tests.
(1) Upon the trial of any civil or criminal action or proceeding arising out of acts alleged to have been committed by any person while driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, if the person’s alcohol concentration is less than 0.08 or the person’s THC concentration is less than 5.00, it is evidence that may be considered with other competent evidence in determining whether the person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug.
(2) (a) The breath analysis of the person’s alcohol concentration shall be based upon grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath.
(b) The blood analysis of the person’s THC concentration shall be based upon nanograms per milliliter of whole blood.
(c) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not be construed as limiting the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing upon the question whether the person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug.
(3) Analysis of the person’s blood or breath to be considered valid under the provisions of this section or RCW 46.61.502 or 46.61.504 shall have been performed according to methods approved by the state toxicologist and by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by the state toxicologist for this purpose. The state toxicologist is directed to approve satisfactory techniques or methods, to supervise the examination of individuals to ascertain their qualifications and competence to conduct such analyses, and to issue permits which shall be subject to termination or revocation at the discretion of the state toxicologist.
(4)(a) A breath test performed by any instrument approved by the state toxicologist shall be admissible at trial or in an administrative proceeding if the prosecution or department produces prima facie evidence of the following:
(i) The person who performed the test was authorized to perform such test by the state toxicologist;
(ii) The person being tested did not vomit or have anything to eat, drink, or smoke for at least fifteen minutes prior to administration of the test;
(iii) The person being tested did not have any foreign substances, not to include dental work, fixed or removable, in his or her mouth at the beginning of the fifteen-minute observation period;
(iv) Prior to the start of the test, the temperature of any liquid simulator solution utilized as an external standard, as measured by a thermometer approved of by the state toxicologist was thirty-four degrees centigrade plus or minus 0.3 degrees centigrade;
(v) The internal standard test resulted in the message “verified”;
(vi) The two breath samples agree to within plus or minus ten percent of their mean to be determined by the method approved by the state toxicologist;
(vii) The result of the test of the liquid simulator solution external standard or dry gas external standard result did lie between .072 to .088 inclusive; and
(viii) All blank tests gave results of .000.
(b) For purposes of this section, “prima facie evidence” is evidence of sufficient circumstances that would support a logical and reasonable inference of the facts sought to be proved. In assessing whether there is sufficient evidence of the foundational facts, the court or administrative tribunal is to assume the truth of the prosecution’s or department’s evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in a light most favorable to the prosecution or department.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the subject of the test from challenging the reliability or accuracy of the test, the reliability or functioning of the instrument, or any maintenance procedures. Such challenges, however, shall not preclude the admissibility of the test once the prosecution or department has made a prima facie showing of the requirements contained in (a) of this subsection. Instead, such challenges may be considered by the trier of fact in determining what weight to give to the test result.
(5) When a blood test is administered under the provisions of RCW 46.20.308, the withdrawal of blood for the purpose of determining its alcoholic or drug content may be performed only by a physician, a registered nurse, a licensed practical nurse, a nursing assistant as defined in chapter 18.88A RCW, a physician assistant as defined in chapter18.71A RCW, a first responder as defined in chapter 18.73 RCW, an emergency medical technician as defined in chapter 18.73 RCW, a health care assistant as defined in chapter18.135 RCW, or any technician trained in withdrawing blood. This limitation shall not apply to the taking of breath specimens.
(6) The person tested may have a physician, or a qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person of his or her own choosing administer one or more tests in addition to any administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer. The test will be admissible if the person establishes the general acceptability of the testing technique or method. The failure or inability to obtain an additional test by a person shall not preclude the admission of evidence relating to the test or tests taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer.
(7) Upon the request of the person who shall submit to a test or tests at the request of a law enforcement officer, full information concerning the test or tests shall be made available to him or her or his or her attorney.
You should talk to a lawyer immediately and find out whether there were mistakes in the breath or blood test performed that can potentially benefit your case. The officer that arrested you and the officer conducting the breath test is required by law to follow procedure. If procedure was not followed, you can challenge the evidence obtained from law enforcement as a result.
Use of Experts:
I am a proud member of the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Washington Defenders Association. On an almost daily basis I am inundated with new insights to challenging DUI cases. Membership in these professional organizations also helps me locate experts throughout the state with years of experience challenging blood tests, breath test and field sobriety tests. Whether it’s challenging the maintenance of the machine? Or the test results? If you have the gumption to go to trial experts can be critical to your case.
Top to Bottom Approach is a Requirement:
A criminal defense attorney needs to examine your case from top to bottom. From the vehicle in motion all the way to your decision to take a Breath or Blood Test and everything in between including your right to an attorney and whether the machine law enforcement used to test you was working properly. There’s a good chance the breath testing machine the government is relying on to suspend your license and incarcerate you is older then the cruiser the cop who arrested you is driving around in. Do you think that in and of it self requires your attorney to take a top to bottom approach to your case?
